Science, Politics and Esoteric Knowledge: ” … there has emerged a phenomenon unknown to antiquity (political correctness) that permeates our modern society so completely that its ubiquity scarcely leaves us any room to see it at all: the prohibition of questioning …

We are confronted here with persons who know that, and why, their opinions cannot stand up under critical analysis and who therefore make the prohibition of the examination of their premises part of their dogma …

The questions of the “individual man” are cut off by the ukase (an arbitrary command) of the speculator who will not permit his construct to be disturbed.”

They were members of the Frankfurt School, formed in Germany in 1923. They were the forebears of what some proclaim as ‘cultural Marxism,’ a radical social movement that has transformed American culture. It is more commonly known today as ‘political correctness.’

Scientific fraud, even by accounts of those within the field, is running rampant.2 It destroys the integrity of those very fields of science, and further erodes the public trust in the scientific enterprise itself. Scientific fraud fundamentally confuses and distorts our own perceptions of ourselves and of our world. But worse, it is the agent of concrete harm when applied to millions of innocent human beings, to our already-fragile environment and to public policy considerations. Who is responsible for this scientific fraud and harm? And who is accountable for it? Are there any validly equivalent phenomena in other areas of academia? “Fraud” is not to be predicated of scientists only. Several recent books and articles, detailing the intellectual and political woes of our elementary, secondary and university educational systems, attest to the fact that “academic fraud” is not restricted to the field of science.3

Is academic fraud in other fields also in the process of destroying those affected academic fields? Is it engendering more and more public distrust in the very enterprise of academia itself? Does it also confuse and distort our own perceptions of ourselves and of our world? And when it is applied, does it also cause concrete harm? Who is responsible for this “other” academic fraud? And who is accountable for it? An anticipated retort to such questions would understandably come in the guise of “academic freedom”.

Academia requires the “free” expression of opinions and ideas – politically correct and otherwise. But an important distinction is being lost. What is presently missing in this equation is the “otherwise”. If only “political correctness” is allowed to constitute the “free exchange of ideas”, then there is not “free” exchange of ideas at all – only pompous propaganda. And if only fallacious and fabricated ideas constitute the “dialogue”, then there is no true dialogue at all – only self-aggrandizing soliloquies.

“Academic freedom” requires both free expression and free dialogue – but it also requires that all of these ideas and theories be vigorously attacked, defended and evaluated -a game in which not every idea or theory can win. — Unless, of course, defenders of the “otherwise” are prohibited from questioning these “constructs”. In this pluralistic society and age of relativism, subjectivism and “political correctness”, the increased tendency (and often the imperative) is to be “tolerant” of a diversity of opinions.

As educators, our profession demands foremost the respect that is due to each student that comes under our influence. We know that students come from a variety of cultural, social and familial backgrounds; that they are in uneven stages of maturity, abilities, experience and preparation; and that great care and prudence is demanded in our teaching relationships and interactions with them.

But in the process of respecting their diversity of opinions, do we in fact actually harm them – and our colleagues and institutions – if we are so overly sensitive (or cowardly) that we resort to the fabrication and falsification of our subject matters, and selectively use only “politically correct”materials in our teaching efforts?

Has “sensitivity” training become a source of fraud and harm?

Where are the limits or boundaries of our moral and professional responsibilities as “sensitive” educators?

To what extent do we actually harm our students, colleagues and institutions by compromising the truth, in any of its forms – and with it, true academic freedom – for the purpose of not hurting a student’s or colleagues’ “feelings” or “opinions” or cultural-bound ideologies?

How far are we willing to go to be collegial, reasonable, fair, gracious, understanding, generous and loving in heart and spirit, mature and “with it”?

And at what point does being overly sensitive (or cowardly) become unethical?

Is it “mature” and “reasonable” to knowingly teach the subject matter of a course incorrectly – or to be silent when we know it is – in order to be “sensitive”?

Given that some courses lend themselves to an “objective” subject matter more so than others – where is the dividing line between fact and fantasy in teaching the subject matter of any given field?

Are we not suppose to teach something about our subject matter because it might offend someone? Or because our student evaluations might be lower?

For example, if there were students in my ethics class who were from a culture or a community in which cannibalism was taught and practiced, should I refrain from presenting critiques of their sincerely-held beliefs about cannibalism because it would embarrass or anger them?

Should I teach that cannibalism is ethically acceptable – or at least as ethically acceptable as any other ethical position?

If there were students in my ethics class who were child molesters or thieves, should I present material that disagrees with their opinion that molesting children or stealing the property of others is ethically acceptable – or should I teach that it is just as acceptable as any other strongly held belief or opinion?

Should I “modify” ethicists’ actual historical theories to “make” them say what would be considered “politically correct” today?

Should I leave out certain ethical theories (or certain parts of ethical theories) because they might make some students uneasy?

Isn’t that really academic fraud?

In order not to offend anyone in my metaphysics class, should I purposely reword, transliterate or incorrectly quote or interpret Plato’s, Aristotle’s, Descartes’ or Kant’s treatises and theories to make them more “palatable” or less “offensive” to my students or colleagues who disagree with those philosophers’ theories?

I was recently interviewed for a position to teach what I am now teaching -the history of philosophy. I was directed to teach only Plato, Plotinus – and then skip to Descartes and Hume – and to please leave out the pre-Socratics, Aristotle and all of the medieval philosophers (especially Thomas Aquinas) – because the students (they thought) would find it “boring”! Is leaving out 900 years of the history of philosophy in a history of philosophy course really a bad case of “political correctness” – or, more harshly, academic fraud?

Has “political correctness” really become co-extensive with academic fraud? Would deliberately modifying those philosophical texts be any less fraud than, say, deliberately modifying and falsifying established scientific texts?

What if a chemistry professor taught students that there were only 12 elements in the periodic chart; or a music professor taught students that there were only 4 piano keys in an octave, or that Beethoven’s fifth symphony was really his first, etc. Isn’t that academic fraud?

If chemists and biologists are now held professionally and legally accountable for negligently misinterpreting or deliberately producing fraudulent and incorrect data and theories – why shouldn’t other academics be held equally accountable for their own brand of academic fraud?

As “politically incorrect” as this may sound, not all translations of historical works are equal, and not all interpretations of those works are valid. In fact, not all ideas and theories – historical or contemporary – are equally valid or sound.4 Some ideas and theories match reality and some do not. Some can be successfully defended, and some can not.

And ideas and theories have concrete consequences. When they are based on the subject matter of a field which has been abjectly politicized, the damage in terms of valid and sound knowledge is alone sufficient for concern.5

When they are also applied6 to innocent and unsuspecting human beings, institutions and societies, the negative impact of inaccurate, indefensible and politicized ideas and theories can be long-term and cause devastating personal, familial, academic, institutional, social and cultural damage.

Perhaps you fervently want to believe that the world is composed of monads or muons or juggleskoots – you are certainly “free” to think whatever ideas you wish.

But you are not necessarily “free” to apply them, or to put them into action. Much less should our public policies be based on them.

Following in his father’s footsteps, [Soros] spent many an afternoon as a student in London propounding Esperantism at Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park.This means Soros speaks Esperanto, the linguistic construction universally considered naive in its intention, of replacing existing linguistic challenges with a synthetic language.This synthetic language is to delude others by inverting ‘empathy’.

LETS KEEP IT REAL SIMPLE, ITS ALL CALLED “LYING” OR “STEALING REALITY”, IN ORDER TO INDUCE ANOTHER DECEPTIVELY TO ACHIVE YOUR ENDS. WHEN THIS IS APPLIED TO INVESTMENTS, ITS CALLED ” PUMP/DUMP” MARKET. WHEN ONE DEVELOPS A MARKET USING THE TECHNIQUES OF ESPERANTISM, ITS CALLED “INSIDER TRADING”.

Fake science:

How is it possible that such massive scientific mis-information has been flowing from our scholarly and academic institutions for so many years – without correction? Citing just one example, the blatant and purposeful use of incorrect “human” embryology (which was, in fact, amphibian embryology) has been taught in academia for over 15 years in bioethics courses, bioethics conferences, incorporated into bioethics text books and computer software – even filed in the MEDLINE computer searches of the National Library of Medicine under BIOETHICSLINE, and thus literally circulated around the world.

Clifford Grobstein,8 the embryologist most responsible for this (who is not even a human embryologist) has recently acknowledged on more than one occasion that his “human” embryology was and is incorrect. His response was simply: “But so what – what’s the big deal?” The “big deal” – aside from being scientific fraud – is that the moral and legal status of the early human embryo and fetus in those debates has been based on that wrong “human” embryology.

For many years theologian Richard McCormick9 has published his arguments for “delayed personhood” based on this science. For many years lawyer John Robertson10 has published his arguments for the status of human embryos and fetuses as property (and has subsequently won court battles), quoting Grobstein’s “science” virtually for pages in his legal publications and briefs. Mountains of volumes of similar examples of incorrect science have been pumped into the academic and political systems, and are bulging the shelves of our university libraries. Indeed, such grossly incorrect science has permeated our highest courts since Roe v Wade (1973).

In that watershed decision, the Supreme Court contended that there was no scientific or medical consensus as to when the life of a human being begins. That was scientifically false then, and is scientifically false now. In fact, the U.S. Senate held hearings shortly after their decision, to determine if in fact there really was such a consensus.

After hearing scientific and medical testimony from around the world, it was incontrovertibly determined that there was, indeed, a scientific and medical consensus that the life of a human being begins at fertilization. But, it was countered, women now had a constitutional right to privacy to deal with their pregnancies; the scientific and medical consensus was not an issue any more. Again, Dr. C. Ward Kischer,11 who has been teaching human embryology for over 30 years, researched the scientific credentials of the 167 “scientists” who authored an amicus curiae brief in support of the Webster case and its “scientific” assumptions of “delayed personhood”.

Of the 167 scientists, only 31 could even be classified as developmental biologists, and only one of those was credentialed in embryology per se – and he was not even a human embryologist. Does the Supreme Court not care about the scientific veracity of the amicus briefs which are presented to them by scientific “experts”, on which they ground so many of their important and far-reaching decisions? Is the Supreme Court basing its decisions on “political correctness”, or on the objectively correct science, the Constitution and the laws of this land? The Supreme Court has refused to even hear the correct scientific arguments,12 for if they did, they would have to reverse the Roe decision. And the women in this country are not yet “ready to hear the truth”.

True academic freedom requires the intellectually honest give and take of all opinions and arguments – not just those from the “politically correct” – whichever side of the “political” aisle. Unless those dialogues are based on correct educational materials, no real dialogue is possible, and the very raison d’etre of the academy is destroyed. Ideas have consequences – especially when they are applied. No where is this more obvious than in the debates about abortion, human embryo research and psychiatric research.

The purposeful manipulation and fabrication of educational materials in the liberal arts – for whatever reason – and the imposition of these defective “mental constructs” on students, educators and institutions alike, constitute academic fraud, causing very serious and life-long damage and harm. As professional educators we should recognize that such harm is every bit as serious and concretely damaging as the kind of harm engendered by scientific fraud.

Our response should be as concrete as that of the scientific community: acknowledge our responsibilities to prevent it; provide mechanisms to detect and correct it (especially in the form of public, published retractions of incorrect information in the journals and books); and understand that we are accountable to the American public if we do not. One of the most unpopular jobs for philosophers is to at least formulate and “raise the questions” that nobody else wants to raise. I have formulated and raised a few questions here which I think need urgent attention – but I leave it up to my colleagues, who have vastly more experience than I, to “answer the questions”!

The mechanics of world empire, in particular the current corporate-financier oligarchy has been examined in great detail. The US State Department, supporting NGOs funded directly by both US taxpayers’ money as well as funds from the Fortune 500 corporations they serve, alone constitute a global spanning, incessantly meddling homogeneous network working to undermine both personal and national sovereignty while replacing national governments around the world.

Perhaps sensing that the secrecy and public ignorance the global elite have been operating behind for decades is now fading, globalist footstool and degenerate warmonger Anne-Marie Slaughter has written a sweeping essay openly admitting “foreign policy” is moving beyond governments and being put into the hands of unelected organizations, corporations, NGOs, and “social movements.” By social movements, Slaughter cites and apparently is referring to the “Arab Spring” which is on record the result of US meddling and organizing, and nothing close to resembling true grassroots activism. It is merely the latest trick out of the social engineering, human exploitation, propagandist playbook.

The debt standoff continues and still lawmakers cannot come to terms on a deal. August 2nd is the day that the US is supposed to default and many are concerned on how this will affect the US’s AAA rating. Gerald Celente, publisher of the Trends Journal, tells us the numbers don’t lie.

As we peel back the layers of Slaughter’s vision of the “new foreign policy frontier,” we see nearly every institution, organization, NGO, or consortium mentioned lined with Fortune 500 corporate sponsors and representatives pursing an agenda of global economic and military hegemony. No one would suggest that manipulating people on a massive scale, leveraging legitimate ideals such as democracy, human rights, or freedom to further a corporate-financier oligarchy’s agenda constitutes anything progressive, nonetheless, Slaughter seems to believe this is not only the future of foreign policy, but an appropriate future at that.

It should be noted that Slaughter has sat upon the boards of Fortune 500 corporationsMcDonald’s and Citigroup as well as a Council on Foreign Relations board member. She is the author of a book literally titled, “A New World Order” whose catch line is “Global governance is here.” In it she argues that such governance is done through “a complex global web of government networks.” Upon examination it is obvious to anyone who looks into these “networks” that they represent the Fortune 500, answer to no one, and apply the rule of law as an arbitrary reflection of their self-serving interests subject to change upon a political whim. Despite Slaughter’s enthusiasm for a “New World Order,” in reality it is the recipe for a corporate fascist planetary regime and constitutes the greatest threat to humanity.

The New Foreign Policy Frontier

Slaughter begins a recent Atlantic article titled “The New Foreign Policy Frontier” by citing “corporations, foundations, NGOs, universities, think tanks, churches, civic groups, political activists, Facebook groups, and others” as the new frontier of foreign policy. She then goes on to state that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “insists that 21st century diplomacy must not only be government to government, but also government to society and society to society, in a process facilitated and legitimated by government.” Slaughter continues by saying, “that much broader concept opens the door to a do-it-yourself foreign policy, in which individuals and groups can invent and execute an idea — for good or ill — that can affect their own and other countries in ways that once only governments could.”

And it is through this door Slaughter describes that “groups,” or more specifically corporations, along with their myriad of contrived, disingenuous NGOs, foundations, “charities,” and media outfits go about circumventing both domestic and foreign national laws as well as the will of people across the planet to execute their agenda, including free trade and wars of aggression.

Slaughter mentions a myriad of these corporate-funded entities including the Council on Foreign Relations, Google Ideas, US State Department’s Movements.org, and the corporate-funded Personal Democracy Forum. She also mentions Jared Cohen, utterly unfazed by the monumental conflict of interest represented by his revolving in and out of the US State Department, Fortune 500 corporations like Google, and fringe organizations like Movements.org that criminally combine corporate agendas with US taxpayers’ money to meddle in the sovereign affairs of foreign nations.

While Slaughter maintains that these unelected corporate funded organizations are more efficient than governments, she fails to highlight that they are unelected and unaccountable. She also fails to mention what motivates corporations to expend resources on circumventing elected governments to pursue “society to society” efforts.

Slaughter goes on to use the “Arab Spring” as proof positive the new foreign policy paradigm is effective. She mentions her two days spent at the corporate-funded Personal Democracy Forum, which included bloggers and organizers from the contrived “Arab Spring.” She notes that other participants included “government officials, corporate executives, and the civic sector.” She claims the six months of unrest in the streets as a result of this “new foreign policy” has accomplished more than 30 years of traditional “foreign policy.”

Why do corporations like Google, Pepsi, British Petroleum, Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Exxon, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs care about “democracy” in the Middle East? Slaughter never seems to get around to answering this question.

A thorough examination of the “Arab Spring,” its sponsorship, and the resulting mayhem and wall-to-wall exploitation being attempted clears up any doubt as to the summation of Slaughter’s acclaimed “New World Order.” It is a parasitic modern day empire spreading its influence, consolidating its power, and deposing all competition to its existence. It is the logical progression of the British Empire and American “Manifest Destiny” combined in a modern day transatlantic, corporate-financier oligarchy.

Arab Spring: New Foreign Policy/Neo-Imperialism in Action

Slaughter’s legitimacy stumbles not only because she is a degenerate warmongering corporate fascist who has spent a lifetime in the service of a global corporate-financier oligarchy, it stumbles also because of her poor choice of examples used to sell her concept of “global governance.”

She believes that “Build Local, Go Global and Change the World” represents the new 21st century activist mantra – however when foreign money representing nefarious corporate agendas are doing the building locally, using their vast media empire to spread it globally and “change the world” it would be difficult to label it as an “activist mantra.” It more clearly resembles an imperialist mantra of using duped activists.

Take for example the Egyptian April 6 Movement. It was in New York City as early as 2008 receiving training and an opportunity to “network” at the US State Department sponsored Alliance for Youth Movements (AYM) summit.

The US State Department backed by Fortune 500 corporations literally held the Egyptian opposition’s hand for years walking them through their “revolution.” With an overt US stooge, Mohamed ElBaradei leading them and still to this dayattempting to worm his way into Egypt’s presidency, the victory is neither the “Egyptian people’s” nor “democracy’s,” but rather the victory of corporations and their interests within the strategically located, 80 million strong nation. Nothing could be more damning of the Egyptian revolution and its final resultsthan the victory lap John McCain, chairman of the International Republican Institute cited by the New York Times as being instrumental in executing the “Arab Spring,” conducted with Fortune 500 industry magnates at his side.

The June 2010 trip served as an opportunity for these corporate interests, the chief sponsors behind the training and organizing of ElBaradei’s army of dupes, to size up assets they soon hope to roll into their financial empires as well as to promote “private sector growth.”

This is surely not what the Egyptian youth had in mind – surely it is not in their best interest to be exposed to the parasitic corporate fascists currently bankrupting every nation from North America to Europe. However their ignorance, short-sightedness, and immense naivety allowed this nefarious global network to manipulate and mislead them, their nation, their entire future into the shackles of modern day imperialism.

Conclusion

This nefarious global network is precisely what Slaughter is promoting in her writings, constituting what she admittedly calls a “New World Order” for enabling global governance. For those that take the time to examine who is behind the “NGOs, universities, think tanks, churches, civic groups, political activists, Facebook groups” Slaughter refers to, they will find corporations like Exxon, Dyncorp, Goldman Sachs, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Rothschild, Halliburton, Bechtel, BP, and many others.

Could anyone seriously accept corporations that are responsible for the worst chapters in modern human history as the architects of a system of global governance and ultimately our future? With the power and wealth they wield, how would they be held accountable? They have the ability to literally buy politicians on both sides of every election from one side of the planet to the other with bottom-lines that eclipse many national GDPs – they do so in a process that is streamlined with the creation of supranational entities like the European Union, North American Union, ASEAN and others. Already the EU is proclaiming dictates each member state is beholden to, with supranational law superseding national and local laws.

It is a bleak future indeed, one where true freedom is replaced with the mere illusion of it. Pragmatism and self-reliance is replaced with trips to the ballot box to pick from a variety of bought-off, ineffectual, self-serving crooks serving a degenerate global oligarchy.

Policy is already being produced not by the people but by corporate-funded think-tanks that then market it to the public through their control of the mainstream media. Their system is refined down to a science – their system is now merely being replicated, nation to nation.

The solution to this problem is obvious. If the power truly lies with these corporations, the very foundation upon which Slaughter’s “New World Order” rests, undermining these corporations through full-spectrum boycotts and thesystematic replacement of their goods and services on a local level shifts that power back into the people’s hands – pragmatically, not politically. It is a solution as elegant as it is simple and one that is impossible to commandeer as the globalists have done with so many attempted political solutions in the past.

There is no doubt now, with daily affirmations coming from the global elite themselves that their “New World Order” is coming. There is no doubt, as exemplified in Libya, that they are willing to murder on vast scales to eliminate any obstruction to their designs.

There is no doubt, after the corporate-financiers have just helped themselves to trillions of taxpayers’s dollars to cover their collapsing pyramid schemes that they are far from the progressive “international order” they claim to represent. There is no doubt that now is the time to act.

There is absolutely no justification for buying another Pepsi, Coke, Big Mac, or Starbucks and further empowering this modern day empire. What we have been taught are the features of a civilized society are in fact the padded, gilded shackles of our enslavement.

There is absolutely nothing the global corporatocracy can do that people can’t do better locally. The only barrier is ambition, education, and a shift in our collective paradigm to see ourselves, not some elected savior, as the ultimate solution to our problems.

The fulfillment of Slaughter’s depraved vision of the future rests entirely in our hands. It will be determined day by day, depending on how we choose to spend our resources, time, attention, and energy.

The simple decision to buy or produce locally rather than patronize Walmart, Starbucks, or any number of other globalist consumer feeding troughs as an individual may seem futile, but a shift in our collective actions and paradigm will undoubtedly derail this ignoble future that awaits us.

STATEMENT: “We’ve got a philosophical difference, which we’ve debated repeatedly, and that is that Senator Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it. And my belief is, the reason that people don’t have it is not because they don’t want it but because they can’t afford it.” Barack Obama, speaking at a Democratic presidential debate, February 21, 2008.

STATEMENT: “These negotiations will be on C-SPAN, and so the public will be part of the conversation and will see the decisions that are being made.” January 20, 2008, and seven other times.

EXPIRATION DATE: Throughout the summer, fall, and winter of 2009 and 2010; when John McCain asked about it during the health care summit February 26, Obamadismissed the issue by declaring, “the campaign is over, John.”

RAISING TAXES

STATEMENT: “No family making less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase.” (multiple times on the campaign trail)

EXPIRATION DATE: Broken multiple times, including the raised taxes on tobacco, a new tax on indoor tanning salons, but most prominently on February 11, 2010: “President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.”

RECESS APPOINTMENTS

STATEMENT: Then-Senator Obama declared that a recess appointment is “damaged goods” and has “less credibility” than a normal appointment. August 25, 2005.

EXPIRATION DATE: March 27, 2010: “If, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis.”

EXPIRATION DATE: March 17, 2010: The Obama administration halted new work on a “virtual fence” on the U.S.-Mexican border, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced Tuesday, diverting $50 million in planned economic stimulus funds for the project to other purposes.

GUANTANAMO BAY

STATEMENT: Executive Order stating, “The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order.” January 22, 2009.

EXPIRATION DATE: November 19, 2009: “Guantánamo, we had a specific deadline that was missed.”

MILITARY TRIBUNALS

STATEMENT: “Somebody like Khalid Sheik Mohammad is gonna get basically, a full military trial with all the bells and whistles.” September 27, 2006

EXPIRATION DATE: Ongoing. “President Obama is planning to insert himself into the debate about where to try the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, three administration officials said Thursday, signaling a recognition that the administration had mishandled the process and triggered a political backlash. Obama initially had asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to choose the site of the trial in an effort to maintain an independent Justice Department. But the White House has been taken aback by the intense criticism from political opponents and local officials of Holder’s decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian courtroom in New York.”

RECOVERY.GOV

STATEMENT: “We will launch a sweeping effort to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government, and every American will be able to see how and where we spend taxpayer dollars by going to a new website called recovery.gov.” – President Obama, January 28, 2009

EXPIRATION DATE: “More than two months after some of the funds were released, [Recovery.gov] offers little detail on where the money is going… The government [spent] $84 million on a website that doesn’t have a search function, when its purpose is to ‘root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government.’” April 2, 2009

STATEMENT: “Based on the conversations we’ve had internally as well as external reports, we believe that you can get one to two brigades out a month. At that pace, the forces would be out in approximately 16 months from the time that we began. That would be the time frame that I would be setting up,” Obama to the New York Times, November 1, 2007

EXPIRATION DATE: March 7, 2008: Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power, to the BBC: “You can’t make a commitment in whatever month we’re in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are gonna be like in Jan. 2009. We can’t even tell what Bush is up to in terms of troop pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US senator.”

Also: July 3, 2008: “My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything I’ve said, was always premised on making sure our troops were safe,” Obama told reporters as his campaign plane landed in North Dakota. “And my guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe, and that Iraq is stable. And I’m going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold.”

STATEMENT: On June 14, Obama foreign policy adviser Susan Rice called the RNC’s argument that Obama needed to go to Iraq to get a firsthand look “complete garbage.”

EXPIRATION DATE: On June 16, Obama announced he would go to Iraq and Afghanistan “so he can see first hand the progress of the wars he would inherit if he’s elected president.”

DEBATES

STATEMENT: May 16, 2008: “If John McCain wants to meet me, anywhere, anytime to have a debate about our respective policies in Iraq, Iran, the Middle East or around the world that is a conversation I’m happy to have.”

EXPIRATION DATE: June 13, 2008: Obama campaign manager David Plouffe: “Barack Obama offered to meet John McCain at five joint appearances between now and Election Day—the three traditional debates plus a joint town hall on the economy in July [on the Fourth of July] and an in-depth debate on foreign policy in August.”

IRAN

STATEMENT: “We can, then, more effectively deal with what I consider to be one of the greatest threats to the United States, to Israel, and world peace, and that is Iran,” Obama speaking to American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Chicago, March 5, 2007

EXPIRATION DATE: “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny…They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.” – May 20, 2008

STATEMENT: Question at the YouTube debate, as the video depicted leaders of the countries, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?…..”

“I would,” Obama answered. July 27, 2007

EXPIRATION DATE: May 10, 2008: Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate: “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”

JEREMIAH WRIGHT/TRINITY UNITED

STATEMENT: “I could no more disown Jeremiah Wright than I could disown my own grandmother.”

—Barack Obama, March 18, 2008

EXPIRATION DATE: on April 28, 2008, cut all ties to Wright, declaring, “based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought.”

STATEMENT: Obama said that his church, “Trinity United “embodies the black community in its entirety” and that his church was being caricatured on March 18, 2008.

EXPIRATION DATE: On May 31, 2008, Obama resigned his membership at Trinity United Church.

JIM JOHNSON

STATEMENT: Criticism of running mate vetter Jim Johnson loan from Countrywide was “a game” and that his vice-presidential vetting team “aren’t folks who are working for me.” June 10, 2008

STATEMENT: Obama spokesman Bill Burton on October 24, 2007: “To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”

EXPIRATION DATE: June 20, 2008: “Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program.”

EXPIRATION DATE: The above statement actually was the expiration date for his previous position, “I actually think we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix,” expressed on July 23, 2007; the above statement expired when he told Democratic governors he thought it is “worth investigating its further development” on June 20, 2008.

NAFTA

STATEMENT: Tim Russert:: Senator Obama . . . Simple question: Will you, as president, say to Canada and Mexico, “This has not worked for us; we are out”?

Obama: “I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator Clinton’s answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far.” February 23, 2008

EXPIRATION DATE: June 18, 2008, Fortune magazine: “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake,” despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? “Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself,” he answered.

“I’m not a big believer in doing things unilaterally,” Obama said. “I’m a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people.”

PUBLIC FINANCING

STATEMENT: “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” Also, a Common Cause questionnaire dated November 27, 2007, asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”, Obama checked, “Yes.”

EXPIRATION DATE: June 19, 2008: Obama announced he would not participate in the presidential public financing system.

WORKING OUT A DEAL ON PUBLIC FINANCING

STATEMENT: “What I’ve said is, at the point where I’m the nominee, at the point where it’s appropriate, I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody.”Obama to Tim Russert, Febuary 27.

EXPIRATION DATE: When Obama announced his decision to break his public financing pledge June 19, no meeting between the Democratic nominee and McCain had occurred.

WELFARE REFORM

STATEMENT: “I probably would not have supported the federal legislation [to overhaul welfare], because I think it had some problems.” Obama on the floor of the Illinois Senate, May 31, 1997

EXPIRATION DATE: April 11, 2008: Asked if he would have vetoed the 1996 law, Mr. Obama said, “I won’t second guess President Clinton for signing” it. Obama to the New York Times.

GAY MARRIAGE

STATEMENT: “Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as president. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.” – campaign spokesman, May 5, 2008

EXPIRATION DATE: June 29, 2008: “I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states… Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks.” — letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club

PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION

STATEMENT: “Now, I don’t think that ‘mental distress’ qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term.” – Interview with Relevant magazine, July 1, 2008

EXPIRATION DATE: July 5, 2008: “My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases.” statement to reporters.

DIVISION OF JERUSALEM

STATEMENT: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” — speech before AIPAC, June 4, 2008

EXPIRATION DATE: June 6, 2008: “Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties” as part of “an agreement that they both can live with.” – an Obama adviser clarifying his remarks to the Jerusalem Post.

Campaigned To Reduce Abortions But The Opposite Is Reality ~ Can Anyone Say Taqiyya?

The following is a compilation of bill signings, speeches, appointments and other actions that President Barack Obama has engaged in that have promoted abortion before and during his presidency. While Obama has promised to reduce abortions and some of his supporters believe that will happen, this long list proves his only agenda is promoting more abortions.

November 5, 2008 – Obama selects pro-abortion Rep. Rahm Emanuel as his White House Chief of Staff. Emanuel has a 0% pro-life voting record according to National Right to Life.

November 19, 2008 – Obama picks pro-abortion former Sen. Tom Daschle as his Health and Human Services Secretary. Daschle has a long pro-abortion voting record according to National Right to Life.

November 20, 2008 – Obama chooses former NARAL legal director Dawn Johnsen to serve as a member of his Department of Justice Review Team. Later, he finalizes her appointment as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of the Legal Counsel in the Obama administration.

November 24, 2008 – Obama appoints Ellen Moran, the former director of the pro-abortion group Emily’s List as his White House communications director. Emily’s List only supported candidates who favored taxpayer funded abortions and opposed a partial-birth abortion ban.

November 24, 2008 – Obama puts former Emily’s List board member Melody Barnes in place as his director of the Domestic Policy Council.

November 30, 2008 – Obama named pro-abortion Sen. Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State. Clinton has an unblemished pro-abortion voting record and has supported making unlimited abortions an international right.

December 10, 2008 – Obama selects pro-abortion former Clinton administration official Jeanne Lambrew to become the deputy director of the White House Office of Health Reform. Planned Parenthood is “excited” about the selection.

December 10, 2008 – Obama transition team publishes memo from dozens of pro-abortion groups listing their laundry list of pro-abortions actions they want him to take.

January 6, 2009 – Obama chooses Thomas Perrelli, the lawyer who represented Terri Schiavo’s husband Michael in his efforts to kill his disabled wife, as the third highest attorney in the Justice Department.

January 22, 2009 – Releases statement restating support for Roe v. Wade decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions and has resulted in at least 50 million abortions since 1973.

January 23, 2009 – Forces taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. Decison to overturn Mexico City Policy sends part of $457 million to pro-abortion organizations.

January 26, 2009 – Obama nominee for Deputy Secretary of State, James B. Steinberg, tells members of the Senate that taxpayers should be forced to fund abortions. Nominee erroneously says limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional.

March 5, 2009 – The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit. Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business, made the invitation list as did other pro-abortion groups.

March 9, 2009 – President Barack Obama signed an executive order forcing taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research.

March 10, 2009 – Obama announces the creation of a new foreign policy position to focus on women’s issues. He names Melanne Verveer, an abortion advocate, to occupy the post.

March 10, 2009 – Reverses an executive order to press for more research into ways of obtaining embryonic stem cells without harming human life. The order Obama scrapped would have promoted new forms of stem cell research.

March 11, 2009 – Obama signed an executive order establishing a new agency within his administration known as the White House Council on Women and Girls. Obama’s director of public liaison at the White House, Tina Tchen, an abortion advocate, became director of it.

March 11, 2009 – Obama administration promotes an unlimited right to abortion at a United Nations meeting.

March 17, 2009 – President Barack Obama makes his first judicial appointment and names pro-abortion federal Judge David Hamilton to serve on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

March 26 – President Obama announced $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that has been criticized for promoting abortion and working closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations.

April 7 – The Vatican has rejected three Obama ambassador nominees because of their positions in favor of abortions.

April 7 – Obama has named pro-abortion law professor Harold Hongju Koh as the top lawyer for the State Department.

April 7 – Put more abortion advocates on his White House advisory council for faith-based issues.

April 8 – Obama nominee for assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, Ron Weich, is pro-abortion.

April 17 – Obama administration releases the proposed guidelines that implement his decision to allow taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of human life.

April 23 – Refused to appeal a ruling requiring the FDA to allow 17-year-old girls to purchase the morning after pill without either a doctor visit or parental involvement beforehand.

April 27 – Obama’s women’s ambassador Melanne Verveer touted Obama’s decision to send $50 million to the United Nation’s Population Fund.

May 5 – Details emerge about a terrorism dictionary the administration of President Barack Obama put together in March. The Domestic Extremism Lexicon calls pro-life advocates violent and claims they employ racist overtones in engaging in criminal actions.

May 8 – President Obama releases a new budget that allows the Legal Services Corporation to use tax dollars to pay for pro-abortion litigation.

May 26 – Appoints appeals court judge Sonia Sonotmayor as a Supreme Court nominee. Sotomayor agrees that the courts should make policy, such as the Roe v. Wade case. Sotomayor is later opposed by pro-life groups and supported by pro-abortion groups and those who know her say she will support abortion on the high court.

July 2- Calls for an unlimited right to abortion at a United Nation’s meeting.

July 7- The Obama administration admits it ignored the majority of Americans who opposed the proposed guidelines that would implement Obama’s decision to force taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research.

July 14 – Obama science czar nominee John Holdren is revealed to have written before that he favors forced abortions.

July 31 – Tells the National Institutes of Health to adopt rules that allow embryonic stem cell research.

August 4 – Information becomes public that Ezekiel Emanuel, an Obama advisor at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, supports rationing health care for disabled Americans that could lead to euthanasia.

August 6 – Obama criticized for asking for people to “snitch” on groups and people who oppose the pro-abortion health care bills in Congress.

August 13 – Obama wrongly said a senator backed the pro-euthanasia components of the health care bill.

August 23 – Said pro-life advocates were making “phony claims” about the health care bills. Also said the claims were false.

Post navigation

Vel Craft Search +4000 Articles

Search for:

Huginn & Muninn

Unconstitutional Powers By Repetition

Usurpations by one branch of government, of powers entrusted to a coequal branch, are not rendered constitutional by repetition.

The United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional hundreds of laws enacted by Congress over the course of five decades that included a legislative veto of executive actions in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919 (1982).

Executive Links

Constitutional Republic Of The United States

True Federalism.

“The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to.

Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, law, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself.

It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best.

What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body.”